MyDiscountStation.com Jibber Jabber

WASHINGTON– Can the local government of Washington, D.C. thumb its nose at a constitutional decision of the United States Supreme Court and get away with it?

"That," says right to self-defense advocate John M. Snyder, "is the question underlying a constitutional crisis brewing now in our Nation’s Capital. It’s up to Congress to nip this crisis in the bud before its effects spread to a multiplicity of locales and involve a wide range of public issues."

"The nexus of the burgeoning constitutional crisis," says Snyder, "was the refusal of officials of the local Washington, D.C. government to accept fully the June decision of the Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller."

"In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the District ban on the possession of handguns in the home is a constitutional violation of the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms."

"Instead of complying fully and in good faith with the decision of the Supreme Court," charges Snyder, named dean of gun lobbyists by The Washington Post and The New York Times, "local officials came up with new legislation which, while complying ostensibly with the letter of the Supreme Court’s ruling, actually attempts to evade implementation of the Court’s decision."

"Among the more outrageous examples of this evasion is the continued inclusion of semiautomatic handguns in the definition of machine guns. This prevents law-abiding Washington, D.C. residents from obtaining popular semiautomatic handguns for protection despite the Supreme Court’s decision in support of the right to self-defense."

"Fortunately," continues Snyder, Manager of Telum Associates and Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, "just before the congressional summer recess began, a bipartisan group of over 50 U.S. Representatives proposed legislation to truncate District officials’ attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court. This measure, H.R. 6691, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act, deserves support from firearm owners around the country, as well as from all Americans concerned about the constitutional anarchy that would result if local governments are able to challenge reasonable constitutional decisions of the highest court in the land."

By: John Snyder, Matket Watch

Lawmakers conduct review

ATLANTA - Legislators looking to expand where Georgians can carry guns may take aim at university campuses.

Carry a gun on or within 1,000 feet of any campus now and you could be charged with a felony, spend up to 10 years in prison and pay as much as $10,000 in fines.

But a panel of lawmakers conducting a wholesale review of Georgia’s gun laws soon will solicit opinions on removing or altering the ban.

State Sen. Mitch Seabaugh, R-Sharpsburg, who chairs the Senate Firearms Committee, sees nothing wrong with allowing a licensed gun owner to visit a college campus while carrying a concealed weapon. Students should be allowed to stow hunting rifles in their cars parked on campus, Seabaugh said.

Several senators on the committee, Democrats as well as Republicans, share that view.

Yet allowing students to carry firearms around campus raises the question of how students - especially those living in dorms - would secure their weapons when they’re not carrying them, Seabaugh said.

That is the duty of any responsible gun owner, said John Wharton, campus leader for the University of Georgia chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

"Of course, irresponsibility can cause problems," Wharton said.

UGA Police Chief Jimmy Williamson isn’t taking sides.

"Whatever is on the books, that is what I’ll deal with," said Williamson, whose officers made seven arrests for firearms violations under the ban in 2007.

Williamson did not want to speculate how changing in the gun ban would affect campus.

Some unknowingly violate the ban, including Eric Dewayne Baylis, 45, of Albany, who was arrested July 16 for keeping a gun in his room at the Georgia Center for Continuing Education, a hotel on the UGA campus.

Baylis, who pleaded not guilty to the felony charge earlier this month, has said he did not know the hotel was owned by the university when his employer booked him a room for a conference.

The specter of gun violence on campuses in Virginia and Illinois is never far from debate over guns on campus. Supporters say if students had been carrying guns, such massacres could have been prevented. Opponents fear the presence of guns in a college environment, where indiscretion and alcohol are often plenty.

For Wharton and others, it’s simply a matter of safety.

"Police simply cannot react fast enough to stop a mad man from taking lives in mass quantity," Wharton said.

The University System Board of Regents supports the gun ban as is and would resist changes, said spokesman John Millsaps.

"We would oppose the end of a ban of guns on campuses," Millsaps said.

At the national level, the victory in the U.S. Supreme Court over a handgun ban in Washington provided little momentum for efforts to remove campus gun bans. In its ruling in June, the court’s majority was careful to point out that the opinion was not intended to cast doubt on firearms prohibitions in schools or government buildings.

The reality is that the gun ban does not keep weapons off campus, according to Seabaugh.

"There already are firearms on our college campuses," he said. "These are people who have no regard for our law or policy, or are ignorant of what the law is."

The Firearms Committee plans to hold a series of hearings on firearms bans over the next few months and may recommend legislation in January. The committee will meet Sept. 23 to discuss the state’s ban on guns at public gatherings and will meet again Nov. 13 to talk about the campus gun ban. Both meetings will be held in the state Capitol in Atlanta.

By: Jake Armstrong, The Athens Banner-Herald

In West Texas, it was not uncommon to see the bumper sticker “fear the government that fears your gun” on a lot of pick-up trucks during both terms of the Clinton administration. Like the rest of the South and much of the Midwest, we were hypersensitive to the thought of having our right to keep and bear arms infringed upon in any way. Moreover, common sense and annual FBI crime statistics taught us that 99.9% of the population only used their guns for defensive reasons, thus we were particularly leery of an administration that sought to take away our instruments of self-defense. Yet as bad as Clinton was, his push to disarm the American people would pale in comparison to what we’d see from a President Barack Obama, a man who not only wants to disarm the American people, but America’s allies as well.

In the 1990s, my fellow West Texans and I were especially bothered by the way Clinton turned every crime — from Columbine to gang activity — into an opportunity to pass incremental legislation which made it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase and carry guns, and therefore harder to be free. And if Obama’s past is any indication, this is the same course he would take in his attempt to get guns out of our hands.

As an Illinois State Senator in 1999, Obama’s solution to gun crime in Chicago was not to push for stricter enforcement of laws already on the books but to support legislation limiting gun purchases to one a month. In other words, his “solution” to gang-related home invasions was to limit the homeowner’s access to firearms.

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg with this guy. During the 109th U.S. Congress, he voted against Senate bill 397, which outlawed frivolous lawsuits against gun companies. And while campaigning for the presidency in Pennsylvania earlier this year, he voiced his support for reinstating the assault weapons ban and spoke openly about his opposition to laws which allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns on or about their persons.

I always wondered what plans Clinton had for us if he could ever take away our guns, and now I wonder why Obama has been such a vocal critic of private gun ownership in the years leading up to his run for the presidency. What type of “change” does he have in store for the American people if he can succeed in disarming us?

Obama’s reasoning — and what his election would portend for the Second Amendment — are a part of a larger “unilateral disarmament” ideology that is one of his core values.

Obama wants to disarm America nationally by defunding the missile defense initiatives of which Ronald Reagan dreamed and which President George W. Bush has begun implementing. In a video message to his supporters in 2007, Obama promised that, if elected, he would not “weaponize space” and that he would cut investments in the “unproven” missile defense systems Bush already has in place (add to this his additional promises to “slow our development of future combat systems” and pursue a “world without nuclear weapons” by reducing our own supply first, of course — it’s almost as if you can hear John Lennon asking us to “imagine there’s no heaven”).

Obama’s opposition to self-defense through missile defense equates to the disarmament of our allies around the globe (if there is no missile defense shield to deploy at home, there will be no shield to deploy abroad). This belief will not be lost on former Soviet satellites, which can see what Russia has done to Georgia in the past weeks and ascertain the kind of “change” Obama has in mind for them if he succeeds in denying them their best means of self-defense.

Even before Russia invaded Georgia, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski indicated that he feared for Poland’s ability to defend herself should Obama win the presidency. In an interview with Desmond Butler, which ran in the Boston Globe on July 8, 2008, Sikorski said John McCain assured him that he would go forward with Bush’s plans to provide Poland with a missile defense system if elected president, but that Obama had provided “no such assurance.”

As the article continued, Butler summed up Sikorski’s sentiments on an Obama Presidency succinctly: “The Polish government is nervous that any deal it reaches with the Bush administration to allow the United States to install interceptors on Polish soil could be abandoned by the next administration.”

Yet on August 14, 2008, Poland did accept Bush’s plan to provide them with a missile defense shield, and Moscow immediately went on record citing this as an offensive move which will require military retaliation against Poland. Maybe I missed something — is this why Russia recently attacked Georgia? Does Georgia have a missile defense shield too?

No. Georgia doesn’t have such a shield but Vladimir Putin’s Russia has ambitions, lofty ambitions like those of Josef Stalin and Vladimir Lenin. All Putin needs to accomplish these ambitions is an enabler — someone who will deny Poles the instruments they need for self-defense and thereby open the door for an armed aggressor to do as he wishes. Obama promises to be Putin’s Johnny on the spot.

On the other hand, McCain supports the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense on both the individual and national level. He knows that refusing to provide Poland access to the tools she needs to defend herself is wrong and would expose her to attack in the same way that denying law-abiding U.S. citizens the right to possess firearms would expose them to attack by gangs of armed thugs and shameless perpetrators.

When McCain talks, gun owners and freedom-loving nations like Poland hear a man they can trust, while rogue nations and communist regimes hear a man they cannot control. But when Obama talks, even his friends hear weakness, while rogue nations and communist regimes hear a man they can manipulate. As for me, every time Obama talks, a little voice inside my head reminds me to “fear the government that fears you

By: A.W.R. Hawkins, Human Events

Why does a new report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police read like every gun-ban strategy we’ve heard for the last 10 years? I’m going to describe a group that recently demanded enactment of a sweeping federal gun control agenda.

Let’s see if you can guess who it is.

The group has 22,000 members in more than 100 countries. Membership categories include “city managers, highway safety specialists, psychologists, attorneys, coroners and management analysts,” among others. The group has offices in Europe and the Caribbean, and the group’s website describes its governing board in your choice of English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

Why does a new report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police read like every gun-ban strategy we’ve heard for the last 10 years? To find out, all one has to do is follow the money.

Is it a new United Nations disarmament agency? No, the group is the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), headquartered in the nation’s capital. And the story behind the report is a shadowy web of huge donations, made by an activist foundation in the Midwest, leading straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups, the IACP and even New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

The IACP report, called “Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities,” is nothing more than a rubber stamp, bought and paid for, of the pre-existing agenda for gun ban groups. It is a blueprint the enemies of freedom plan to pursue after the 2008 elections–if they win total control of the White House and Congress.

What compelled the IACP to issue this sweeping report? Follow the money. A note on the cover proudly declares that the report was issued “with support from the Joyce Foundation.”

That’s a familiar name to longtime readers. The Joyce Foundation has pumped tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of gun ban groups over the years. The Violence Policy Center (VPC), an unashamed promoter of a total ban on handguns, collected more than $1 million of Joyce money just in 2005 and 2006. In 2000, the Joyce Foundation paid a VPC advisor and former Handgun Control, Inc. board member to edit a “Second Amendment Symposium” issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review. That slim volume contains nearly half the anti-individual rights articles ever published on the Second Amendment.

The IACP newsletter proudly notes that the Joyce Foundation has “made more than $30 million in grants to groups seeking public health solutions that offer the promise of reducing gun deaths and injuries in America.”

This year, the Joyce Foundation invested heavily in IACP. They paid IACP over $500,000 to host “The Great Lakes States Summit on Gun Violence,” and then to issue the report from the conference. That comes out to nearly $11,000 per page, but the Joyce Foundation got what it paid for–no surprise given the report’s thank you to Joyce Foundation Communications Director Mary O’Connell for “her editing, writing and consistent work to produce this report.”

By: Guncontrolkills.com

Finally, a school district gets it right, and gives the teachers a chance to protect the lives of students. I hope the mayor of Atlanta

The Texas school district in Harrold is on the right track. With law enforcement officers potentially thirty minutes away, the school district has recognized that armed teachers just might be the best defense against an attack.

As I have written in the past, just one gun may be all that is needed to end a threat. History has shown us the absence of guns has not stopped an attack once it begins.

Now if we could only get the officials of Harrold, Texas to discuss their decision with the mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin, who is absolutely certain that the best way to protect me is to disarm me, a logic which I do not grasp.

Recently, the state of Georgia passed and signed into legislation House Bill 89, which allows those with permits to carry concealed weapons to carry their weapons in locations that years past were off limits. Many of these laws were passed after the end of the Civil War, to prohibit blacks from having weapons in public.

Some of the locations that we could not carry concealed weapons included near bus stops(define near for me please), and restaurants that served alcohol.

The new law was debated and specifically passed to allow people such as myself, who have passed a background check, been fingerprinted, and signed affidavits regarding our backgrounds to carry concealed weapons into restaurants serving alcohol (it is illegal for us to consume alcohol at a restaurant while I carry), and to ride mass transit(an area known for easy prey of victims as we were certain to be unarmed).

When the law became effective, the mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin declared the airport a gun-free zone and threatened to arrest anyone with a concealed weapon. She has also dragged the TSA into the arguement, asking them to declare that the non-sterile areas(those you enter prior to going through the metal detectors) as the domain of the Feds, and subsequently not subject to Georgia State law.

A lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of people like myself, who have every right to protect ourselves against the threat of predators. Georgiacarry.org has taken the initiative and is working diligently to protect my Second Amendment Rights. In fact, with less than 2500 members, they have overturned more bans unconstitutional under Georgia law than any other gun rights group in Georgia.

If you have been to the Atlanta Airport, then you will understand why a law-abiding citizen would appreciate the opportunity to protect themselves. Row upon row of vehicles where predators can lie in wait for you where the predator knows you are unarmed is not a comforting feeling. Driving home from the airport without your gun is an option many of us would choose to not make.

There are also many areas where it would take more than thirty minutes for the police to locate and respond to your call for help in the Atlanta Airport Parking lots. So if the school district in Harrold, Texas, recognizes that thirty minutes is too long to respond to an immediate threat, why doesn’t the city of Atlanta?

Congratulations, Harrold, Texas. I would wager that if a predator wants to attact students, your school will not be one they will target.

By: EJ Moosa, The Naked Truth

HARROLD, Texas — A tiny Texas district will allow teachers and staff members to carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings when classes begin this month, provided the gun-toting employees follow certain requirements.

The small community of Harrold in north Texas is a 30-minute drive from the Wilbarger County Sheriff’s Office, leaving students and teachers without protection, said David Thweatt, superintendent of the Harrold Independent School District. The lone campus of the 110-student district sits near a heavily traveled highway, which could make it a target, he argued.

"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying ’sic ‘em’ to a dog," Thweatt said in a story published Friday on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s Web site.

Barbara Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Association of School Boards, said her organization did not know of another district with such a policy. Ken Trump, a Cleveland-based school security expert who advises districts nationwide, said Harrold is the first district with such a policy.

Trustees approved the policy change last year. For employees to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations; and must ammunition designed to minimize the risk of ricocheting bullets.

Officials researched the policy and considered other options for about a year before approving the policy change, Thweatt said. The district also has other measures in place to prevent a school shooting, he said.

"The naysayers think (a shooting) won’t happen here. If something were to happen here, I’d much rather be calling a parent to tell them that their child is OK because we were able to protect them," Thweatt said.

Texas law outlaws firearms at schools unless specific institutions allow them.

It isn’t clear how many of the 50 or so teachers and staff members will be armed this fall because Thweatt did not disclose that information, to keep it from students

Plaintiff Dick Heller, who successfully challenged the District’s ban on handguns, stands outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Exactly two weeks ago, we told Mayor Adrian Fenty and the D.C. Council that the overbearing emergency legislation regulating gun purchases, registration and ownership they passed would face a lawsuit. The week before, we told them how to possibly avoid litigation. City Hall did not listen. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the District remains onerous.

A lawsuit was filed Monday by Dick Heller, the very gun-rights advocate who challenged the city’s strict handgun ban that led to the Supreme Court decision. The high court affirmed that citizens do indeed have the individual right to bear arms. In his latest suit, Mr. Heller is contending that the new D.C. regulations are "unreasonable and burdensome" for prospective gunowners. Mr. Heller argues, for example, that the city’s classification that a machine gun is any weapon that shoots more than 12 rounds without reloading makes most semi-automatic pistols off limits and does not conform to the public’s perception of what a machine gun is nor with the definition in any English language dictionary.

But there are other encroachments, including a provision that requires residents to keep their guns unloaded and disassembled in the home or equipped with a trigger lock. Worse is a provision that makes it impossible for residents to even register a newly purchased handgun: "The applicant takes his or her completed application to a licensed firearm dealer to take delivery of the pistol. If the dealer is outside the District, the dealer transports the pistol to a licensed dealer in the District to complete the transaction."

There are five federally licensed dealers in the District, including the Shakespeare Theatre Inc. Arena Stage and some others, but none are selling or transferring firearms. The facts regarding the how-to of registration are singularly ironic because one of them is anti-gun lobbyist Josh Sugarmann. He is the founder and executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a group dedicated to gun control. But he is neither selling nor transferring firearms. Mr. Sugarmann has devoted much of his life to ending gun violence and defending gun laws. (The policy center has even advocated guns be regulated as a public-health product.)

That D.C. residents have no D.C. option when it comes to purchasing and registering firearms is unacceptable and turns any measure of common sense and reasonableness on its head.

City Hall could easily spare the Violence Policy Center and the Shakespeare Theatre the hardship by striking the provision when it returns from summer recess. But that is as likely as Mayor Adrian Fenty testing the onerousness of his own bureaucracy and anti-gun logic by trying to buy and register a handgun. Indeed, the mayor is seemingly refusing to yield even to the Supreme Court when it comes to handgun rights. Mr. Fenty’s response to the second lawsuit filed by Mr. Heller sounds as if the mayor was not even aware that the court had ruled in Mr. Heller’s favor: "The Office of the Attorney General will vigorously defend the District’s laws as reasonable regulations of firearms, and as the lawful action of the people’s representatives, the Mayor and the Council."

The issue is not whether City Hall "will vigorously defend" the city’s statutes. The issue is twofold: 1) why City Hall refuses to obey the Supreme Court; 2) and why City Hall is becoming so litigious. The coolest of heads are needed when litigation involves the Constitution.

By: The Washington Times